Social Security
Recently I spoke at a forum on social security, jointly hosted by the GLRL, ACON, the Welfare Rights Lobby, Positive Life, People with Disabilities NSW, and AFAO.
As a result of changes to federal law, over 80 pieces of discriminatory legislation were removed.
In most instances, in areas such as superannuation, tax, Medicare, and veterans entitlements our community will be better off.
However, in the area of social security, the result of recognising same-sex couples will mean some couples will be financially worse off.
We recognise there are groups of people who are going to do it particularly tough as a result of those changes -鈥� those who are chronically ill and their carers and those who are retired, people on disability pensions, age pensions, sole parents allowance and carers payments.
We are highly concerned about the financial disadvantage that these groups will face.
The Lobby is particularly concerned for those who have not had the advantages of recognition or equality over their lifetime and have suffered ongoing discrimination and disadvantage, and now face further financial hardship in retirement.
We have heard about people worried about being able to make ends meet for daily expenses, as well as meeting payments for pre-existing commitments like rent and mortgages.
We have also heard concerns about older couples not wanting to out themselves after years of being in the closet.
Throughout the campaign for these changes, the Lobby’s position has been clear.
We have consistently said to the Government that any changes that will adversely affect the community, particularly social security changes that will leave people who are already vulnerable with less money in their pockets, should be phased in over time and introduced with sensitivity.
The Lobby, along with the organisations listed above, have now embarked on a lobbying campaign to ensure that equality that introduces new responsibilities is introduced in the least detrimental manner possible.脗聽 We hope the Government will listen.
Emily Gray is the convenor of the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby.
Have older lesbians and gays been sacrificed on the alter of look-good law reform? Both the ALP & the peak GLBTI organisations with whom they play footsie, are feeling pleased with themselves that those 80 or so federal statutes were amended. How nice! Oh dear such a pity about the losers isn’t it.
See the GLRL’s statement as quoted in the Senate Standing Committee’s report (Oct. 2008) re the then proposed changes:
“Same-sex couples are generally willing to forgo the advantage in social security for comprehensive equality across all area of federal law.
Thanks a bunch boyz & gals. I wonder just how many gay and lesbians in relationships who are on age or disability pension were actually asked if they’d like to live on less money? “Will you be willing to take a 17% cut in your pension – or even lose it completely & have to rely on your partner’s largesse for basic necessities?” One has to ask how many non-pensioners, those in the workforce in secure jobs would willingly take a 17% cut or forgo their wages completely – for the sake of the elusive dream of equality. None I bet. And remember equal treatment and equality are not the same thing.
So the Lobby, ACON & others have finally arrived at the point of
realising that there is a BIG difference between formal equality and substantive equality. The first is about an across the board/on the face of it approach while the second is about outcomes and accounting for past systemic disadvantages. The first is a quick fix and simplistic. It looks good! For a start those to whom it applies did not start on a level playing field.
Older lesbians and gays have fought for our rights and equality, have lobbied for justice -鈥� and now have ended up being the victims of injustice ie. lack of substantive justice. Not fair!
Well, to be accurate, general manager of Centrelink, Hank Jongen said he estimated at least 11,000 Centrelink customers would be affected by the changes…-艙Establishing whether two people are members of a couple involves consideration of financial aspects, and social aspects, of the relationship, nature of the household, presence or absence of a sexual relationship, and nature of the commitment. Evidence relating to these factors is considered, although not all factors need to be present for a decision that a person is in a de facto relationship to be made. In 2006-07, there were 27 000 same-sex couples living in Australia.
Unfortunately, many HIV+, elderly, those on Centrelink Benefits such as the Disability Support Pension, low income earners and those who rely on the Health Care and the Concession Card, etc., share accommodation for the physical security, help in case of a fall and the high costs of renting alone.It is these disadvantaged who are going to bear the of equality. The loss of access to the PBS will mean many pozzies will no longer be able to afford their meds. Of the 982 HIV positive Australians whocompleted the HIV Futures 5 survey, 82% identified as gay or bisexual men.
Same-sex couples who receive any welfare benefit will have to notify the agency of their relationship, their partner’s income, and any changes in their circumstances. But same-sex couples will not be allowed to marry, have adoption rights or receive IVF treatment. When I spoke with (then Shadow) Attorney-General Robert McClelland he said he favoured a 5 or 6 year phase-in period. The changes, July1, will come into effect 15 months after the govt. announced them. Elderly gay and lesbian couples under the new reforms stand to lose nearly $200 per fortnight.
The response to emails and calls to acon on the issue received the response, ‘we don’t have much to do with Centrelink.”
Centrelink has wide powers of investigation. They can question anyone who may have information about you. They may ask questions of friends, hospitals, relatives, employers and neighbours and information is collected from ‘the public’ (for example a dob-in by a neighbour, family member or ex-partner,) the Department of Housing, real estate agents, gas and electricity suppliers, local council, or any other person they think that can provide them with details of a relationship including acon and BGF.
Questions Centrelink will use to assess relationships include: “Do you provide financial support for each other? Do you have any joint accounts or credit cards? Whose name is the telephone/electricity/gas in? Who pays the bills and how do you work it out? Do you jointly own large items, eg house, car, furniture? Do you know about each others financial affairs? Has either of you named the other person as a beneficiary in your will or superannuation? Do you lend or give each other money? Do you share the same circle of friends? Do you tell each other where you are daily or what you are doing when you go out? Do you frequently go out together or do you regularly go out separately? Do either of you have a girlfriend or boyfriend? Do you visit each others families? Would your friends and families consider you a couple? Do you correct them? Do your family or friends make plans for you as a couple? Have you ever let a government department, real estate agency or bank assume you were a couple? Do you take holidays together? Commitment to each other. How long has the relationship lasted? Is it different from other friendships? Do you consider the relationship is likely to continue? Who do you talk to when you have a problem? If you suddenly got sick, who would you call? Have you any long term plans involving the other person? Do you think you are likely to marry? Do you think your relationship is like a marriage? If the other person lost their job or had no income, would you feel obliged to offer them financial help for a period of time?” The questions will also apply to those living seperately or apart from my their ‘partner’.
Centrelink investigations may go on for 6-12 months as it gathers information. Centrelink may not contact you to tell you that the investigation has ceased. If Centrelink believes you intentionally provided the wrong information your case may be referred for prosecution. Overpayments will be recovered by Centrelink. Even if you are repaying the money, you may still be prosecuted.
The National Welfare Rights Network has stated, ” While demanding the same treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples may seem fair at face value, it will not create equity. It is disingenuous to claim that the Bill removes discrimination against same-sex couples, when the proposed amendments relating to Social Security and Family Assistance will entrench poverty for individuals whose access to employment benefits, superannuation and insurance entitlements have already been significantly affected by the discriminatory laws that the rest of the Bill seeks to reform.” It’s a pity most in this community don’t feel the same way.
Let’s hope the GLRL can do more than just ask politely for nice transition arrangements and pleasant sensitivity – the demands of the organisations include grandfathering arrangements, guaranteed no forced outing of old people, comprehensive training and advocacy, and more. It is time the lobby stepped up and got tough and demanded decent treatment for age pensioners, including those that lobby members have never met. The aged lobby is watching how you fight for our community’s elders, it’s the measure of an organisation’s worth and the measure of a community and indeed a society how it treats its elderly. Do not disappoint.